WordWolf

*snicker*

I was a bit directionless. I could have gotten focus lots of places, but I DID get it there in one step. I got a reason to just put my head down and slog through everything. Also, the basic strategy of straightforward reading, while not the be-all and end-all of study, came in handy for me in school. So, the latter was practical.

I keep making that initials mistake. ==== Ok, let's save some time. WG, tell me what you're looking for me to say, and we can see if it's something I can agree with and say in good conscience. I think you're looking for something specific here, and will need me to state it outright before we move on to anything else.

YEAH!!!!! Deny them the power! Gotta love it....

If you PERSONALLY know he wasn't on staff at or even NEAR hq, I'll accept that. I don't PERSONALLY know one way or the other. He certainly showed up as if he was, a number of times, and he apparently travelled in to sign his death certificate if he wasn't on-site. Unusual, but that was not a usual situation, so hardly unlikely. If dogotel is correct, then SOMEONE was cranking out any Rx's vpw wanted. If not BW, I wonder who, since I always heard HIS name as a medical doctor, and no other- and one would expect THAT guy to be the one to sign the death certificate. So, either BW cranked out Rxs, or another medical Dr cranked out Rxs, or someone not a Dr FORGED Rxs, or the security was breaking into pharmacies to get codeine without Rxs, or security was paying off pharmacists to get codeine without Rxs, or dogotel's account is incorrect. Seems you said the first one is untrue- how do you interpret the other possibilities? Then again, we hear about people getting caught after several years of this sort of thing,and some people who "doctor-shop" don't get caught. If dogotel's account is true, someone or other was committing an unethical act (cranking out Rxs), or an illegal act (forgery, theft, trafficking in illegal goods). Either way, that was actionable, and risky for the participants. I don't see it as that difficult to find SOME twi'ers who would be willing to break the law for vpw, but I don't know who SPECIFICALLY would do it here. (Unless dogotel's account is false, in which case there were no laws broken and no improper actions of this type.) I don't see it as unfeasible. Outside of twi, it's hard to imagine, but there were always those people in twi who would have died for vpw or killed for vpw. The only questions are what was done, who did it, and did it actually happen. If your statements are correct, my comments are in error, period. How do you see dogotel's account having come to pass? I ran down all the possibilities I see, which do you think is the more likely?

Oh, right. lcm wrote about this. Courtesy of the thread "vp and me in wonderland", http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=195492 lcm: "Dr and LCM invite/request all the (in-residence and on-field) Corps to write their autobiographies. Oct 79 was set for the deadline. Dr was hurt when not many responded to the deadline." WordWolf: "Was it an "INVITATION" (thus optional) or a "REQUIREMENT" (thus compulsory)?" lcm: "LCM had not done his yet either" WW: "Not a problem if it was an "INVITATION", but if it was, lcm should have known it would be expected of him specifically." lcm: "Dr reproved LCM in front of the corps." WW: "A little public humiliation is standard operating procedure for vpw. (As it was later for lcm.) So much for "He handled it in private of course."" lcm: "How can you expect the younger Corps to do something when the leadership didn't do it, either?" WW: "Who wants to bet money vpw failed to set the example and write out HIS?" lcm: "Dr displayed great love and tenderness to him the next morning by inviting him to lead the 10:30am fellowship." WW: "Or, he got over himself." The whole thread is here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=8019

Sorry I never got back to this. I was referring to this editorial off the main site: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/editor...to-suicide.html

That's interesting. Occasionally, some poster tries to assert everything was in the open on-grounds, that everyone on staff knew. Obviously, that is NOT true. That's very interesting. Patients with persistent pain problems can get a number of medications legally by prescription to handle persistent problems with pain. That was true in 1984-1985 also. They weren't exactly bleeding people with leeches in Ohio medical offices at that time. However, vpw has to get HUGE Rx's of CODEINE. Not any medication that's used LEGALLY for EXTENDED PERIODS for persistent pain- he's using a NARCOTIC used for LIMITED PERIODS. Here's something from Wikipedia's page on codeine: "Tolerance to many of the effects of codeine develops with prolonged use, including therapeutic effects." "is often used as a recreational drug. This is mainly due to its easy availability over the counter or on prescription in combination products (which, in certain countries, are scheduled lower than codeine as a single-agent). People use it in order to obtain the euphoric effects associated with use of opioids." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codeine Here's something from Wikipedia's page on narcotics/opioids: "Moreover, it isn't always the case that those with a physical dependency to opiates find it too difficult to get over their "addiction," because so-called medical addicts (those that become physically dependent on opiates given for pain relief after treatment) only have to "give-up" the physical symptoms - they don't also have the all important psychological and life-style attachment to the drug which goes to make up the all-encompassing "addiction."" "There are two major patterns of narcotic dependence seen in the United States. One involves individuals whose drug use was initiated within the context of medical treatment who escalate their dose through "doctor shopping" or branch out to illicit drugs." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcotics vpw didn't have to "doctor-shop" to get prescriptions- "scrips"- from different doctors to keep getting Rxs from them. He had one on-grounds to crank out any Rx he wanted: W1n*garn*r, if memory serves, was on staff AND the Dr who signed his death certificate later. He DID, however, need to "pharmacy shop", since he couldn't just keep going to one local pharmacy to place large, continuous orders for a controlled substance without rousing suspicion by law-abiding pharmacists. Thus, the need to sneak all the Rxs. Naturally, this is considered an abuse of medication, and is not legal-which is why it wasn't a matter of "who cares what they think?", but "We don't want them notifying the authorities." Since vpw had an addictive personality-tobacco, alcohol, adulation, sex, power- it's really not a shock to hear he might have showed signs of addiction to a narcotic which he might have gotten initially as a poor choice of painkiller, and then gotten addicted to. Naturally, I'd be more comfortable if a poster who was once on staff came forward to corroborate this, to say "yes, I saw this as well". And, lest I forget, Hello, dogotel. I hope you enjoy your stay. There's a sticky with advice here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=7913 You may find it useful.

Deciderator, I really tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's obvious you're either skipping over posts and just pulling stuff out of context out of grand laziness, or you're deliberately doing your best to misrepresent this, and either way, I can't see a SENSIBLE reason for doing it. You and I spent a few pages speaking PURELY THEORETICALLY- and I labelled each of my posts accordingly- concerning a lawsuit that may or may not have happened. I can discuss theoreticals easily without confusing them for discussing the PROVEN. We came to some disagreements on the theoreticals, even, and ended up at an impasse, where you are almost certain there WAS a lawsuit, and have added "plagiarism" to the charges based on a persistent, insistent misunderstanding of the details. After pages where we discussed theoreticals- and I said as much, but not in every single sentence because I don't think the posters here are f'ing morons, you interpreted it thusly: Meanwhile, my posts keep saying the same thing: IF there was a suit, it would have specifically been about the rights to print, publish and teach the twi/pfal materials. PERIOD. Somehow, you've succeeded in misreading the first part, that we discussed theoreticals (accepting the premise "there was a lawsuit" purely for the sake of continuing the discussion) as the opposite. Since I said as much in many posts, that's either intentional, or dreadful comprehension. It's compounded when I KEEP correcting you over what I said twi WOULD sue over- the rights to print, publish, and teach the twi/pral materials, and not "plagiarism" in any form. So, what would be "apparent" to almost everyone else as the content of my posts is apparently NOT what's "apparent" to you. It's also intellectually-dishonest to claim I changed my position when I KEPT saying the same thing. REASONABLE people accept that something that affects publication rights does not necessarily relate to EVERYTHING that relates to ANY degree with publication rights. You keep shoehorning in "plagiarism" into "rights to reprint", and they're not the same thing to just about everyone except you. We could if I felt like reproducing a stack of posts in succession on this thread. You keep making the same unsupported assertion- 1) there definitely was a lawsuit 2) twi definitely sued cg for plagiarism 3) twi lost suing cg for plagiarism My response-that those are unsupported- are not an ASSERTION- they are an ANALYSIS. Your claims are unsupported. That's not a speculation. You took an unsupported claim OF a lawsuit, and to that, added the entire subject of plagiarism and an entire legal judgement based on the subject you added. I didn't "speculate" you did that, it's all over the last several pages and so are my posts pointing that out. The evening news doesn't "speculate" what happened, it just announces it, and occasionally offers analysis. Either you're deliberately making a persistent effort to blind yourself about what plagiarism is, or are determined to manufacture any attack you can, and try to pass it off as truth. I shall demonstrate for the benefit of anyone honestly seeking to understand. (Perhaps you will see this as well.) You posted this in post #289: In post 290, the very next post, I QUOTED THAT, by name, with a link to your post, which was immediately above itand plainly obvious to be the post I was replying to, and directly below that, I posted the following: My point was, that your own post applied MORE to yourself than Juedes, as demonstrated IN your post. In the process, I made it clear I was quoting, named the person, provided the quote, and did everything but force the readers to reread your post to read mine. Any honest adult should have NO DIFFICULTY seeing that. You, however, are insisting that all of that constituted rather than proper attribution documented more than one way.Furthermore, since this demonstrates you either are clueless on the subject of plagiarism, or deliberately intent on misinforming others on the subject of plagiarism while accusing me AND Juedes of the same, I agree with your other comment that this Mr Juedes, I expect, could use a few updates, but your obsession with his usage of ONE English word (how many posts, how many pages, how many weeks on this "pirate" thing have we seen?) need not be HIS obsession. I HAVE provided credit where credit is due, your insistence on creatively reinterpreting the facts notwithstanding. ANYONE can scroll up and see it in black and white. You CAN easily do so, but at THIS point I expect you are determined NOT to. (I was expecting otherwise, and have been disappointed in my expectations of your intellectual honesty.) You have a nice posting STYLE, but style =\= SUBSTANCE. All the style in the world can't reform misinformation or faulty reasoning. That was one of the problems with pfal, during the dramatic session on the "law" of believing. =========== Since you're obviously not going to convince anyone except yourself of your position at this point, and since your unsupported assertions are obviously going to be challenged, can we end this circular discussion, or need this persist for post after post after post still?

============ Sunesis previously posted the following concerning cg, vpw's bus driver and the writer of Passing of the Patriarch: "I believe CG has a very sadistic mean streak. I saw him verbally devastate a young woman from Europe during corps week at HQ one year. She had had a bit too much to drink one evening, as they had been celebrating another European believer's wedding. The party, after the wedding went to a local St. Mary's watering hole that evening. She was pretty plastered and didn't want to leave the place so they just left her at this bar. I was out that night at the same bar, and waited until closing to bring her home to H.Q. I was not going to leave her with the townies leering at her. I don't know who told on her - probably some of the wedding party people who left her, but PL and I were told the next day to be in the courtyard of VP's house the next morning. I went there clueless, and there she was with CG, her leader, and PL, the corps coordinator at that time. Well, first CG yelled, then lowered his voice and hissed saying awful, sick, destructive stuff about this woman. The thing was though, usually, people calm down after a few minutes, but he ended up going on and on and on, and literally hissing at her for almost 45 minutes. I started wondering, what the heck is going on here? All of a sudden it dawned on me, 'he is enjoying this!!' I watched in horrified fascination. I have never, in all my years in TWI, seen someone as verbally torn down as this woman was - it was evil, just plain evil. Even PL was mortified - and she's hard to do that to. After it was over, the woman went away in tears and PL took me aside and said, go talk to her. I looked at her incredulously and said, what could anyone possibly say to her. She told me to go talk, then send her over to PL at noon. I spent the morning with her, got her back to some semblance of normalcy, then PL took over. They became great friends. Anyway, I was glad I never had to serve under him, and was glad God let me see the sick side of him about a year before POP. I got in TWI in Rye when he did, and he was my limb leader in college. He was always cold, unfriendly and aloof. Why did he get worse? Well, it was always in him, it just took a mentor to bring it out. I always think of a hissing snake when I think of him." ========= As for me, once someone in the corps tried a non-yelling version on me, when I visited hq grounds. When it was obvious he was going to keep talking and not listen, I let him run till he finished, then matter-of-factly asked him "Been saving that speech up all month?" after which I effectively pretended he hadn't said most of it. He unclenched and actually acted human after that. I just rejected the mask he was forced to assume as a corps person, and that freed him to be more like he WANTED to be, as I see it, looking back. At the time, I just thought he was trying far too hard.

I don't think Outfield's specifically asking about lcm or anyone's GENERAL rants from the microphone, nor lcm's lunchtime announcements about how a recent escapee was possessed/sold out to the world, etc, but rather specific incidents screaming in someone's face. vpw publicly screaming at lcm? No kidding. Feel free to elaborate.

So, in 1971, S+efan E was sent by twi to the Bronx, correct? Was the next step twi sending H33fn3r, and if so, what year was that?

You can consider it a personal milestone-but only once you get someone else to use it... The shoe polish, yes, but the 4-in-1 I've seen was an oil, which would lead to a whole OTHER doctrinal squabble.

That's the short form on why my solution to the Gordian Knot was not to blow off either side (and I've seen both sides do that), but to acknowledge that both sides can make a case, but not an UNASSAILABLE case, so I concluded that BOTH are WRONG and the truth is something else. Lord and Son of God, yes, but some of the specifics beyond that? I honestly say "I don't know."

Or to believe this saying existed before it was posted here, for that matter... Go ahead, do an online search on that phrase. No occurrences. None. Unless this one starts coming up.

It's always a shock when I can name a Voyager episode. I've seen so few, and I doubt I've seen all of ANY... Ok, next round. "He may have been a hero... he may even have been a great man... but in the end, he was a bad captain." "I came to see Ferenginar. I've heard a lot about it -- I can't wait to see all the... the rain... and the muck...

Ok, the first quote is to a Borg, possibly 7 of 9. The last quote is probably from the holographic doctor, who never named himself. The middle quote? Possibly Tuvok or another Vulcan, or possibly said TO a Vulcan, but not necessarily either. I think this is a Voyager episode, in the final season. Is it the one in the future with Janeway with the shuttle with all that supertech like regenerative shields, ablative hull, and the kitchen sink, visiting the past and blowing up the Borg gateway?

Doesn't seem crazy to me. Putting anything before God is idolatry. When I was IN, this seemed like an emerging problem- with the word of Wierwille being more important than the Word of God, and twi being a goal in and of itself (serve twi), and not a means TO a goal (serve God). When I was freshly out, someone else spoke of what he considered "Wierwillism", adoring vpw rather than God, and elevating vpw to a position that SHOULD belong solely to Jesus Christ. Idolatry is a danger with ANYTHING you care about, and with some people trying to encourage it, this becomes a more present danger.

The Doctrinal forum is where we discuss "what God's true position is" on things. Feel free to post your doctrines there.

Is there anyone out there who would actually want to BUY the land, who has that kind of money? You can only sell if there is a buyer.....

We interpret the information differently. It's not expressly stated, AFAIK, but the implications are they DID, in their 7th year, when they were Head Boy and Head Girl. I'd have to reread Book 5, when Sirius described how James' head finally deflated to know. I'll reread it eventually. I expect he knew as a result of the incident where James saved his life-mentioned in Book 3. Good point about what Wormtail knew, the Death Eaters knew. It's come up when discussing the reference to "the Animagus Black" in the fight between the OotP and the DEs in Book 5. We agree it was a dig-I just think that there's a difference between"Snape loathed James and took it out on Harry" and "Snape sure was a real a-hole." I think this specific incident moves him into the second category. The common thinking is Ted Tonks, the muggleborn, will do it, since he's still alive. The running gag is that the kid will be a werewolf with hair that changes colour all the time. So, what do you think of the connection between the doe and Lily Potter? What is the connection? And what should Snape's response to it be?

I know it would begin with the traditional "Rise up o men of God...."

Now then, what COULD be meant? Obviously, Jesus did not fast AT THAT MOMENT when casting the demon out. Fasting is an activity that takes time. Therefore, if Jesus fasted in relation to this instance, it was long before it. IF Jesus meant prayer and fasting was needed for casting out demons of this difficulty, he meant that one had to pray and fast some previous time, probably REGULARLY. Why would this be relevant? Judging from the Acts accounts, there's a certain amount of discipline in connection with prayer and fasting. This would appear to affect the "punch" of his effectiveness. At least, that's what he's saying here. A more fundamental question, however, is- did Jesus say this at all? I've been looking over different responses to this question, raised by myself and by others. The responses seem to fall into 2 camps. (If I wanted, there would be 3 camps, with the 3rd saying "the Bible is all wrong, don't bother to be a Christian." I'm skipping that in general but including it in the interest of completeness.) Camp 1 says "These verses have been used for centuries, and many manuscripts use them." Personally, I detect a distinct scent of "how dare you question the traditional versions!" in them. A fine example of that is here: http://www.tyndale.org/TSJ/13/thiede.html In admitting that 2 of the main codexes show this missing (Mark 9:29), the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, it still insists that "well, Tyndale didn't include it centuries ago, and that's just fine with us." In the latter 1/2 of the 20th century, a large number of parchments have shed light on textual problems that were impenetrable centuries ago, and most of the ones I've seen were the result of ADDED verses. In this page, the arguer ended by saying that some texts obviously DELETED verses, but that's far, far, FAR less common than ADDING verses. Occasionally, a translator meant well and added something-either from another gospel, or to add a dramatic and "appropriate" flourish, but rarely did a translator just remove a verse. Statistically, that alone would get me suspicious. A number of us are familiar with the fact that LATER works on original texts get progressively more accurate, as more documents are compared, and translators get closer and closer to the original texts in their own attempts to overcome Zeno's Paradox. (I'm highly in favour of this effort, of course.) That's why even the KJV has been tweaked over the centuries, and versions from the 2nd 1/2 of the 20th century are held as more accurate than versions from before the 20th century. (Unless you're of the camp that your denomination has THE version, in which case whatever year that one was made is THE year.) The International Bible Society- which is a legitimate organization that's been around for a while- said this about BOTH verses: http://www.ibs.org/niv/mct/4.php "In the NIV, Matthew 17:21 (kjv) is entirely missing. Why? To answer that question we should first turn to Mark 9:29. There Jesus is reported as saying to his disciples: “This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting” (kjv). I once heard a godly missionary say, “If you don’t get the answer to your prayer, then fast, and God will have to answer your petition.” But that is magic—manipulating God—not true religion. The fact is that “and fasting” is not found in our two fourth-century manuscripts (cf.niv). It apparently was added in the fifth century, when much emphasis was being given to Gnostic asceticism and to monasticism. Then the whole of Mark 9:29 was inserted in Matthew. But Matthew 17:21 is not found in our two earliest manuscripts, as well as in the best ninth-century codex. At best it is doubtful whether these words are genuine, and so they should not be emphasized." Up this thread, theInvisibleDan gave a specific reference for this same point. Now, I'm aware that some people are quite reactionary when someone approaches the idea that THEIR version might have an incorrect verse that was inserted long ago. Often, the response is how the student doesn't like the Bible, or doesn't like the verse and doesn't respect the Bible enough to treat it honestly when faced with inconvenient truths. To that, I'll quote the end of the page on that IBS link. "All these facts that we have been rehearsing may seem rather disconcerting to the average reader. But, as we noted before, with thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament now at our disposal, we can reach a high degree of certainty with regard to the probability of the best text. It should be added that comparative statistical studies indicate that all Greek manuscripts are in essential agreement on at least 95 percent of the New Testament text. Significant differences exist, then, in less than 5 percent of the total text. And it must be said emphatically that none of these variant readings poses any problem as to the basic doctrines of the Bible. They are intact! We should like to add that all the members of the Committee on Bible Translation are devout Evangelicals, believing in the infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word. We have all sought earnestly to represent as accurately as possible what seems to be, as nearly as we can determine, the original text of the New Testament." Therefore, pending some compelling textual proof, I find it highly unlikely that the original texts had EITHER verse, and any doctrine based ENTIRELY on them is NOT based on The Word of God as given by God. Therefore, the difficulty of casting out demonaics being overcome by fasting, in and of itself, that's something man invented. The discipline of prayer-and of fasting- certainly would do no harm to the praying Christian, and may well help. However, our Lord did not himself state fasting was necessary when casting out demons. Again, fasting-when done carefully- is not a bad thing, and there are verses showing it is of use- just not THIS use.

Now then, what about the specific verses we are talking about? KJV Matthew 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. KJV Mark 9:29 And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. This is anomalous in Scripture. Fasting and prayer are steady, ongoing activities. In these 2 instances-and ONLY these 2 instances- are they connected with an instant activity. Someone needs deliverance from a demon, and Jesus commands the demon to leave, and it leaves. KJV Matthew 17:14-21. "14And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying, 15Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water. 16And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him. 17Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me. 18And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour. 19Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? 20And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. 21Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." KJV Mark 9:14-29 "14And when he came to his disciples, he saw a great multitude about them, and the scribes questioning with them. 15And straightway all the people, when they beheld him, were greatly amazed, and running to him saluted him. 16And he asked the scribes, What question ye with them? 17And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit; 18And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not. 19He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me. 20And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming. 21And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child. 22And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us. 23Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. 24And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. 25When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him. 26And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead. 27But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose. 28And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out? 29And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting." ===== What literally happened in the verses? Judging from the verses preceeding and following, they describe the same incident. We know (Matthew 10:1) that the 12, at least, had authority to cast out demons. In this PARTICULAR case, they tried to, and were unable to. We know this was an extreme case- the boy was unable to speak, and tried to kill himself when he was under demonic influence. This looks like full-blown possession, where the boy was unable to make any choices during the incidents. This oppressed him for a number of years (since he was a child). Jesus is very matter-of-fact about this, and seems to be frustrated his disciples didn't cast him out. The boy had some sort of seizure or attack when he was brought to Jesus. There's an interesting comment, which sounds like Jesus is instructing the boy's father, then cuts it short when the crowd begins approaching. Jesus commands the demon to exit the boy, and to never return to him. The results are dramatic and instant- the demon leaves within seconds, trying not to, apparently. Immediately after that, the boy collapses. There's no lengthy ceremony, no ritual, no somatic or material components. An instant of "zap" and whammo! the demon is dragged out reluctantly. The disciples ask how he could do that, when their best efforts didn't bring results. His reply is the verse under contention, in each case.....

Ok, having reviewed all the evidence I have convenient access to, I'm prepared to state what conclusions I have at this time, pending any new information overriding current considerations. Forgive me for rambling- this doesn't warrant a bland statement "and this is what it is." ========= Concerning the usage of fasting at the time of Jesus, indisputably, it was done. Jesus said that hypocrites made sure others knew they were fasting, as a display of how pious they were. Matthew 6:16-18 16" Whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance so that they will be noticed by men when they are fasting Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 17"But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face 18so that your fasting will not be noticed by men, but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you." So, we know some people fasted, for whatever reason. We also know the disciples(students) of John the Baptist fasted. Mark 2:18-19 "18 John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and they came and said to Him, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?" 19And Jesus said to them, "While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot fast, can they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast." I believe it's safe to say their motives were good. (Matthew 9:14 makes the same point.) After Pentecost, the disciples of Jesus fasted. Acts 13:2-3. " 2While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." 3Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." Acts 14:23. "23When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed." Jesus himself fasted, we also know. Matthew 4:2. "2And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry." The same incident is described in Luke 4:2 as well. Obviously, if Jesus did it, the reasons were sound. What the SPECIFIC reasons were at the time would need to be determined, however. An argument can be made that he fasted regularly- but it's not in Scripture. An argument can be made that he only fasted rarely- which is why it's not in Scripture. If he did NOT fast, it's not in Scripture because he didn't do it. Same, say, as the verses that don't exist where he didn't smoke cigarettes. He didn't do it, so there's no verses addressing it. If he DID fast, and there are no regular references to it, then the regular fasting was not critical to the Gospel accounts. The disciples seem to have fasted at specific times, when praying for a specific purpose, and each occurrence was with prayer. (Luke 2:36-38 and I Corinthians 7:5 seem to make the same case.) I conclude the following, so far: Fasting was not considered critical by Jesus for the everyday walk of the Christian. He DID, however, consider it important at specific times, and criticized those who fasted only to use it as a display of their supposed piety. The disciples did fast, and when they did, there were specific purposes, and in each they prayed during their fast, each of which was before action taken. Was it specifically to focus for revelation, or was it for the efficacy of the prayer at the time? Uncertain from the verses. As for the specific verses we're asking about...